On October 6, around 240 Opposition MPs marched towards the Election Commission of India’s office in New Delhi, demanding a meeting with Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and seeking his resignation. They were stopped a few hundred metres from the Commission’s office and eventually sat in protest.

The Election Commission, however, gave a different account.

In a press note issued that evening, it said it learnt through the media that MPs wanted to meet the Commission and that, until 4 pm, no political party representative had sought an appointment.

Later, Delhi Police informed the Commission that a delegation led by Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi wanted to submit a memorandum. The ECI said the delegation wanted to meet at Parliament House Annexe, whereas its protocol required such meetings to be held at the Commission’s premises. It offered to send a senior-most officer to receive the memorandum, but the MPs declined.

The explanation may address the question of procedure. But it does not answer a larger question that has been building around Gyanesh Kumar for more than a year — how does the Chief Election Commissioner deal with political parties that question him and how does he deal with the two Election Commissioners who sit alongside him?

The October 6 incident is only the latest in a series of episodes involving the CEC and Opposition parties. Once, Kumar publicly demanded that Rahul Gandhi either substantiate his allegations against the Election Commission through an affidavit or apologise to the nation. In yet another, a political delegation claimed that Kumar asked them to “get lost” within minutes of their meeting.

Taken individually, each incident can be explained away as a disagreement between the Commission and a political party. Taken together, they raise questions about the style in which the country’s top election official engages with political stakeholders.

‘Sir, please invite us?’

One of the more striking episodes came on June 9, when a Congress delegation went to the Election Commission over a matter concerning the party’s Rajya Sabha nomination in Madhya Pradesh.

Congress leaders were stopped outside the Commission’s office and made to wait. Police cited prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The episode ended with Congress leaders staging a protest at the entrance, while some senior leaders were subsequently allowed inside. 

For Congress MP and national spokesperson Pawan Khera, the episode was not simply about access to an office. It was about the manner in which the country’s principal Opposition party was being treated by an institution that is expected to engage with political parties.

“Sir, please invite us? Is that how it is supposed to happen?” Khera said, questioning the manner in which the delegation was handled. 

On another occasion, when a Congress delegation from Uttarakhand requested a meeting with the Commission, Khera said they were made to wait a week with no response. A delegation, including Khera, then went to the Commission to raise issues regarding the SIR process and Form-7. They were refused entry. Instead, he said, “An upper divisional clerk was deputed to come out and take our representation.”

His point was that Opposition MPs are not ordinary petitioners approaching an office. They are elected representatives and political stakeholders in........

© newslaundry